Client was charged with negligent discharge of a firearm under Penal Code section 246.3(a), facing a felony conviction, the loss of his career, and lifelong firearms restrictions. Prosecutors claimed he had staged an ambush by posting guns throughout his home. After a full jury trial, the jury acquitted him on all charges.

The case began when our client’s girlfriend called police because she feared he might harm himself. In his state of anguish, he slapped one of his guns against his leg, causing it to discharge and shatter his back window accidentally.

When officers entered the home, they found multiple firearms placed in various rooms near windows. The prosecution used this as the centerpiece of its case, arguing that the scene looked like the client was preparing for an ambush or shooting.

At trial, we confronted the state’s theory head-on. Through cross-examination of the police officers and testimony from the client’s girlfriend, we demonstrated that the discharge was accidental and that the presence of firearms was explained by the fact that the client and his girlfriend had recently returned from the shooting range. In his depressive state, he had simply not put the guns away.

We also attacked the prejudicial assumptions about the firearms, highlighting that the law requires proof of an intentional discharge under Penal Code section 246.3(a). Guns alone do not make a crime, and the state’s narrative was not supported by the evidence.

The jury agreed. After deliberation, they acquitted our client on all charges.

This verdict protected the client’s career, cleared his name, and reinforced that even in cases involving troubling evidence, careful preparation and cross-examination can prevail.